Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sim City: The Card Game


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep. No delete votes. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 15:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sim City: The Card Game

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Card game does not appear to be notable - specifically fails to have garnered significant coverage over a period of time. No question it existed and even that there is RS which covers it, but this minimal coverage, which does not establish that it has permanent independent notability, can be incorporated as appropriate into Sim City. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose AFD is not a venue if you want to redirect a page. The name is a reasonable redirect, and I do agree in part that the card game did not gain sufficient notability for its own article, but you can't use AFD for that. --M asem (t) 19:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per discussion below, this is a proper venue for a challenged redirect. --M asem (t) 22:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barkeep49 was sloppy in his redirect attempt citing only one source, when there were two - he also deleted newly cited material and did not merge it properly. There are now 6 sources "over a period of time." Seems a little premature now. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Restoring the AfD per evidence below that it was WP:BOLD redirected. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_City%3A_The_Card_Game&type=revision&diff=877284040&oldid=877262727, it was already redirected by the nominator but reverted, hence the whole AfD. So it is not a wrong venue in this case. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * AFD is not a venue to discuss redirection, see WP:ATD-R. If the redirected was challenged, then the proper next step would be to open an RFC on the article's talk page to get wider input. --M asem (t) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , like Pradixcae said on my talk page, this could be a delete Sim City: The Card Game and redirect situation too, so I think this is the right place to sort this out. RFC is not applicable as the article is not redirect anymore to be discussed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a case where "deletion and recreate as a redirect" would be appropriate. We strive to keep all reasonable contributions in a page's history, and there's certainly nothing in this article's history that calls for the need to delete. There are valid cases where WP:TNT applies if the existing content in the article is so grossly inappropriate for WP that its better to delete, but this article is well far from that. If the goal was to redirect, and it was challenged, then a discussion on the talk pages of affected articles is the only next appropriate step. --M asem (t) 19:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but WP:ATD-R clearly says If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. It was disputed, and AfD is a place to get consensus as well. RFC IS a good target for discussion but since AfD also handles these situations on regular basis, relies on consensus and redirect can be a result of the discussion, I cant see any problems. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been long held that AFD should not be used for anything else than the intent to delete. The nominator may start out with the intent to delete and the AFD is closed as a redirect, that's an acceptable result, but when the goal of the nominator is to redirect, then that's a misuse of AFD (it has been a WP:PEREN to make "AFD" stand for Article for Discussion to include redirects, merges, etc. and that has never gained consensus). The process that should have been done, thinking about it more, would be to follow the process of WP:MERGE once the redirect was undo the first time. --M asem (t) 19:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Did not know about that WP:PEREN which happened. Problem is that some content was already merged at SimCity, but I guess it would not help as the content dispute between the 2 users would go on. I strongly believe some consensus needs to be made (along with page protecting the redirect if the consensus is the redirect to avoid further mess). Admins should review this case to see if this AfD should go on, or create RFC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * AfD is frequently used for community backed redirect. I know this because I have done it before, as have others recently, and because it says redirect is a valid outcome of AfD right in the second sentence of WP:AFD. I am clearly advancing a deletion based argument, namely that it's not notable. A redirect coming from here can be soft (history preserved) or hard (deleted and then redirected, erasing history for non-sysop) but saying "This content of this topic is not independently notable and should not exist on Wikipedia" feels like something policy says that a community decision at AfD rather than a merge discussion is appropriate for deciding. You can argue, as Leitmotiv, that I have notability wrong and the article should exist, but the fact that I support an alternative to deletion does not mean that this venus is closed off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ^. When an attempt to redirect is rejected, the community is regularly invited to an AFD to establish a clear consensus. The alternative method for this would be to propose a merge, but those are often left to languish without involvement from the community. --Izno (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, it has been clarified that there is consensus that redirects that were challenged may be brought to AFD. So consider this aspect no longer relevant. --M asem (t) 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per new sources added by Leitmotiv to help it meet the WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage is not required over a period of time because notability does not expire – most sources are effectively permanent because they can be found in archives or central libraries.  Talk of redirect is misleading as there is an obvious main topic -- the original Sim City game -- and so this is a merge discussion for which deletion is quite inappropriate per WP:MAD.  The games are best kept separate for clarity and simplicity as smushing everything together results in pages which are too long.  Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You should review WP:SUSTAINED. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that "period of time" is vague. Also brief bursts of news coverage over a period of time seems contradictory. Either way the sources supplied pass WP:GNG. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not temporary. WP:NOTTEMPORARY The article passes the general notability guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  12:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The game has enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.